Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a few points on the adjournment speech given by the honourable member for Prospect. There are far more places for supported employment under our government than there were under the previous Labor government. It is not Centrelink’s role to refer people for employment; that is for the Job Network. Companies such as the business belonging to the wife of the Leader of the Opposition, Work Directions, specialise in finding employment, supported or open, for people with disabilities.

Tonight, I would like to bring the House’s attention to a matter which, as an ex-servicewoman, is of great concern and importance to me. It affects the lives of veterans and their families. Earlier this year, my constituent Mr Russell Henry Pearce, a TPI pensioner, telephoned my electorate office in Penrith with a disturbing story indicative of a legal system that has got completely out of control. In early 2001, my constituent was telephoned at home by Hollows Lawyers, a Victorian legal practice. They stated that he would have a case against the Commonwealth of Australia, as Mr Pearce was a crewmember on HMAS Melbourne when it collided with HMAS Voyager in 1964. My constituent was reluctant to pursue this matter because of the time factor. This accident happened 37 years ago, so there were a number of legal barriers that any base trained lawyer would be aware of. But my constituent is an ex-serviceman and he has no legal training. As far as he was concerned, he was a TPI recipient and that was fair compensation for the service that he had done for his country.

After a number of telephone calls from these lawyers, my constituent was visited in Sydney by a solicitor from this firm in August 2001 and interviewed at a hotel in York Street. The offer was for the practice to represent Mr Pearce. It was not going to be a class action, which could disperse costs. Rather, the practice chose to run Mr Pearce’s case solely as a precedent. Again, anyone legally trained would have known that he would bear the costs. The solicitor was dealing with a number of different matters during his interview that were unrelated to Mr Pearce and was really not giving Mr Pearce his full attention. But what Mr Pearce picked up from that interview was that there was a no-win, no-fee arrangement. At this interview, Mr Pearce was given a retainer agreement to look through and sign. He signed it on face value and on what the lawyer had told him. He understands that he should have read the fine print. In his mind, he understood that he would not have to pay any moneys at any time, especially if this matter was not successful in court. And he was assured by the lawyer that it was an absolute winner. I understand that Mr Pearce knows several other servicemen who were approached by the same firm for similar representation, yet the firm chose not to run a class action.

The matter was eventually heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court in April 2005, where it was unsuccessful, and then in the New South Wales Court of Appeal in June 2005, where it was again unsuccessful. Leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was refused in February 2007. On each of those occasions, Mr Pearce said: ‘There you go: the court’s spoken. We shouldn’t go on.’ On each occasion, he was told by his lawyers that this was a real case, that he had a substantive matter and that he should go on. He did not have any comprehension that he would be liable for any costs.

He had paid several costs throughout—$1,000 here or $2,000 there to file this and file that for the solicitors. He had paid that out of goodwill. To date, Mr Pearce has paid over $32,000 to the lawyers, plus a $13,500 fee for senior counsel to prepare the matter for the High Court hearing, but this senior counsel did not even appear at the hearing. He has used all of his savings and has gone into debt. He has borrowed money that was requested by the solicitor to pay for various costs and disbursements during the course of the action. This is despite him saying on a number of occasions that he could not afford any more money and telling them not to go on. But the solicitor said, ‘We go on; no win, no pay.’ You guessed it: after leave to appeal to the High Court was refused, Mr Pearce received a letter saying that he would be liable for the Commonwealth of Australia’s legal costs. This letter was from the solicitors. It said:

We estimate that the total legal costs payable to the Defendant will be between $150,000 and $275,00 ... once we receive the Defendant’s account we recommend you provide us with $2,500 to pay the cost assessor to object to the terms of the account.

(Time expired)

Question agreed to.